Memeorandum

August 26, 2006

Prospective New House Chairman

The NY Times looks at the roster of Democrats who would chair the various House committees *if* the Dems reclaim the House this November and follow their past practice of elevating members on the basis of seniority. After noting the Dems that scare Republicans, they eventually get to He Who Must Not be Named, the Dem that scares even the Dems (Spoiler - it is Alcee Hastings of Florida, who would chair, no kidding, Intelligence). Here is the second paragraph:

In fund-raising appeals, on the Internet and in stump speeches,
Republicans raise the specter of a Judiciary Committee headed by
Representative John Conyers Jr. of Michigan, a banking committee
steered by Barney Frank of Massachusetts, a tax-writing committee led by Charles B. Rangel of New York, and an energy panel under the leadership of John D. Dingell of Michigan.

Alcee finally appears in paragraph sixteen:

Other positions are more problematic. At the Intelligence Committee,
Representative Alcee L. Hastings of Florida, who was removed from the
federal bench in the 1980’s, is in line to take over, although that
decision would be the responsibility of Ms. Pelosi and could prove
explosive.

"Removed from the federal bench"? He was impeached by the House for corruption and perjury and "became only the sixth Judge in the history of impeachment in the United States to be removed from office by the United States Senate." However, the good people of the great state of Florida have sent him to Washington, so here we are.

And what is happening to Jane Harman, the ranking Democrat who gained national prominence when the NSA warrantless wiretapping story broke? Per the operation of term limits within the Democratic Caucus, she is slated to be moved aside as ranking Dem in favor of Alcee (she is also in a primary tussle). Steve Clemons attributes this to internal Dem politicking by Nancy Pelosi and the Congressional Black Caucus.

Paragraph seventeen gives us a whiff of the Conyers problem:

And some Democrats are nervous about the prospect of a Judiciary
Committee led by Mr. Conyers, who has raised the prospect of impeaching
President Bush, a notion that Ms. Pelosi has sought to bat down.

Not only has Ms. Pelosi sought to bat it down, but someone has exhorted Mr. Conyers to clean up his campaign website - the "Before", currently available in Google-cache, highlights the prospect of a Bush impeachment on the main page; the "After" has been revised to soft-pedal that goal.

At this point, Tradesports has the Reps with a 47% probability of retaining control of the House; the Iowa Electronic Markets seem to be at 54%. Anyone who can explain that apparent gap, feel free (and if I am reading on of these two sites backwards, well, it's a weekend in the summertime...)

MORE: My favorite Conyers moment came when he and Rep. Louise Slaughter bit on a Daily Kos misdirection play and put out a press release alerting the world that "reporter" Jeff Gannon/James Guckert had special access to the CIA / Plame scoop.

The Times believed the Kos Crowd as well, but eventually got to the truth - Guckert had simply been reading the Wall Street Journal. Guckert eventually as much as said so in a Times interview:

Mr. Guckert denied seeing a Central Intelligence Agency memorandum
disclosing the identity of Valerie Plame, a C.I.A. operative, even
though he had strongly insinuated as much in an interview with her
husband, Joseph C. Wilson IV, the transcript of which he posted on the
Internet.

Mr. Guckert's phrasing in that interview so strongly
suggested he had seen the classified memorandum that it brought F.B.I.
officials to his house as part of the Plame leak investigation, he
said. But he said referring to the memorandum as though he had seen it
was merely an interview technique. ''What I said was no more than what
was reported in The Wall Street Journal a week before,'' he said.

Sell every stock you own - the market will fall if the antibusiness pro-tax dems are in charge. Who would want to invest in US companies that are going to be under every investigation and anti business legistration from a congress lead by socialist.

The consequences of Operation Iraqi Freedom for U.S. forces are being documented by the Defense Department with an exceptional degree of openness and transparency. Its daily and cumulative counts of deaths receive a great deal of publicity. But deaths alone don't indicate the risk for an individual. For this purpose, the number of deaths must be compared with the number of individuals exposed to the risk of death. The Defense Department has supplied us with appropriate data on exposure, and we take advantage of it to provide the first profile of military mortality in Iraq.

Between March 21, 2003, when the first military death was recorded in Iraq, and March 31, 2006, there were 2,321 deaths among American troops in Iraq. Seventy-nine percent were a result of action by hostile forces. Troops spent a total of 592,002 "person-years" in Iraq during this period. The ratio of deaths to person-years, .00392, or 3.92 deaths per 1,000 person-years, is the death rate of military personnel in Iraq.

Who's Blogging?
Read what bloggers are saying about this article.
Exile in Portales
Daily Pundit
Redstate | Conservative News and Community

Full List of Blogs (16 links) »

Most Blogged About Articles
On washingtonpost.com | On the web

Save & Share
Tag This Article

Saving options
1. Save to description:
Headline (required)
Byline

2. Save to notes (255 character max):
Blurb

3. Tag This Article

How does this rate compare with that in other groups? One meaningful comparison is to the civilian population of the United States. That rate was 8.42 per 1,000 in 2003, more than twice that for military personnel in Iraq.

The comparison is imperfect, of course, because a much higher fraction of the American population is elderly and subject to higher death rates from degenerative diseases. The death rate for U.S. men ages 18 to 39 in 2003 was 1.53 per 1,000 -- 39 percent of that of troops in Iraq. But one can also find something equivalent to combat conditions on home soil. The death rate for African American men ages 20 to 34 in Philadelphia was 4.37 per 1,000 in 2002, 11 percent higher than among troops in Iraq. Slightly more than half the Philadelphia deaths were homicides.

Pelosi, Frank, Conyers and Rangel are all members of Socialist Bernie Sanders Congressional">http://cpc.lee.house.gov/">Congressional Progressive Caucus - the 'Rent Seekers 'R' Us' wing of the party. They're proud of their socialist beliefs and I think that they are a wonderful advertisement for progressives in general. Why, if you looked at the cumulative total of their IQ scores it would come close to the level of "genius".

What's wrong with pointing out their political leanings? Considering their line of work, that is.

All you need to do is remember 1993-94 and how the leftist democrats jumped the shark so hard that many of their moderates left the party. After 12 years without a democrat in the whitehouse they thought they finally had it made but became unhinged with their new found power. The result was their loss of dozens of senate and house seats. The last thing we need is for democrats to be in power again. They are not at all serious about the dangers we are facing not just as a country but as a planet. I'm not pleased with the republicans but they are going to be easier to tame than a democrat party that has lost all bearings, sucks up to socialist dictators and is heavily influenced by racist wealthy elite bigots who view the rank and file as meat not worthy of their own opinion if it conflicts with their masters dogma.

Democrats have changed some. Also it helps to have both parties promoting economic strength. Dems and their MSM have a nasty habit of trying to spook the herd when there's Republican presidents. Same on national security.

Boris:
I like that term spook the herd. It describes the dems to a tee. Unfortunately it's true the dems have no real leadership. The one sensible leader {Lieberman} they are trashing and trying to defeat. Too bad Breaux and Zell Miller are gone. The dems like lemmings are headed off a cliff.

Dems and their MSM - you surely don't mean Fox, Limbaugh, and the WSJ, or any number of local conservative papers and radio stations. Even before Fox I though the "liberal press" was, mostly, a canard (ok, the Post and Times and major TV networks were probably liberal once...).

Dems spooking the herd - but the Democrats are famous for being unable to ever agree on anytnhing, the herd mentality applies better to Republicans/investors IMO.

Sure, the Pali's know how to take care of their propagandists. I wonder if that's the model with the kiddie corpse chiller? The Pali's have a nice system that allows their Reuter's personnel to purchase props and keep them nice and fresh - none of that 'slightly green' look that the hezzies are forced to endure.

I wonder when the fauxto ghouls are going to realize that the only reasonable interpretation of a PRESS sign is that it's an instruction to the pilot with his finger on the kill button?

This gives me a similar chill as reading a report that the Convicted Felon Party has a good chance of taking control of congress in the next election. Complete with a list of death row inmates that will be released to take committee chairmanships.

Actually it's the same thing. Just a bunch of "unconvicted felons" trying to take over.

Tom, the Tradesports vs Iowa Markets gap is the natural result of imperfect information: two partially disjoint sample groups (there are probably at least a few common traders) will arrive at different equilibria.

"ok, the Post and Times and major TV networks were probably liberal once..."

Right--they're real middle-of-the road these days. And Jerry, those are precisely the folks we mean when we say "MSM," although you have to throw in Time and Newsweek as well. Anyone who calls Fox or Limaugh MSM is involved in a different converstation altogether.

I'm not familiar with the Iowa betting exchange, but I do know TradeSports, and it's exactly because of arbitrage that the two sites won't differ appreciably in odds (assuming that the proposition is the same). Buying a new GOP house at less than 50 sounds like a pretty nice wager.

As of a few minutes ago, Tradesports and Iowa were back in sync. Both show the probability of the Republicans holding the house to be about 47%.

I'm one of the people buying the contract. What you try to do is sucker the dumb-ass lefties/Dems to sell you a contract at a low price.

At 47, they're laying out $5.30 until November, while I'm laying out $4.70. When the contract closes, I'll get $10.00 if the Republicans hold the house.

If we could get enough lefties/Dems into the game, we could get the price down to about 30 or 35. Then I'll really make some dough.

For those who really care, according to Tradesport, the chances of Lewis Libby being convicted are 40%, and Tom Delay being convicted is 25.5%. I'm not trading either one of those because there is not enough liquidity in the market. Less than 1500 contracts have traded in each one.

Why do the markets fall out of sync? In the case of IEM, there are not enough participants as of this date. IEM is actually part of the graduate curriculum at the University of Iowa. Schools not in session yet. So someone buying right now will wind up overpaying. Eventually the markets return to norm.

Patch, whisper in Jason Leopold's ear and cross his palm with silver..something like, sealed v sealed is going to be unsealed the week before the election and it is an indictment of not only Rove but every single Republic member of Congress as well..Let us know before publication so we can be lined up to place our bets.

Dems spooking the herd - but the Democrats are famous for being unable to ever agree on anytnhing, the herd mentality applies better to Republicans/investors IMO.

Ha. Does this sound familiar "If the Republicans are elected there will be burning churches"..."If the Republican's are elected they will bring back the draft" ...."If the Republican's are elected, they will take away the black vote"... "If the Republican's are elected they will start a Nuclear War (that was the Gipper-heh)"

"If we could get enough lefties/Dems into the game, we could get the price down to about 30 or 35. Then I'll really make some dough."
The lefties are there in profusion already, but they're not quite dumb enough to sell at any old price - the 47 trade price really is current perception of value based on the steady MSM drumbeat on dwindling GOP chances. It doesn't help things when Republicans in tough fights start "moderating" their Iraq views. It doesn't help that John McCain is up to his old tricks. Now, stories about the Dems who would take over leadership positions, THAT'S gotta help.

Why you clowns seem to favor a one party system is beyond me. You idiots claims to be in favor of competition except when it comes to running the country. SHEESH. The republicans are running the country into the ground. What keeps you from seeing that?

I understand that I am an Antagonist on this blog and I do regret this recent swarm of hooligans. Very sorry for that... however, do I detect an evil conspiracy brewing? Where do these people come from?

It's not Republicans running the country into the ground I'm worried about. What DOES concern me is how badly the Dems are liable to fuck it all up if they get back into power. They're acting at this point like they don't have a damn clue and think simply having a (D) next to their names is sufficient reason to vote for them.

Goddam! The Repubs are running the country into the ground! What are ya gonna do about it? "We'll do something different!" Okay, WHAT? "We'll raise taxes! We'll make peace with Radical Islam! We'll give everyone a fluffy bunny!" Damn. That's reassuring. Is that supposed to be sufficient reason to vote for Democrats?

It's NOT. I need a real, good, sufficient reason to vote for a Dem again, and in all honesty there's not a damn one that acts like they can think their way out of a paper bag, much less find solutions to the problems facing this country. (I'd say there was one, Lieberman, but they kicked his ass out for using his brain without authorization.)

We're facing unprecedented problems, and I'd rather hand the country over to a Boy Scout troop than the current crop of Democrats. The Boy Scouts would at least ADMIT they don't know everything, and would be looking for ways to solve the problems. The Dems KNOW what the problems are and KNOW what to do about them, and despite the fact their solutions in the past have done nothing but CONTINUE the problems (because a solved problem is worthless for campaign promises) I'm supposed to vote for them?

Nope. Better get a new crop in, and fast. Or the Democratic Party's gonna join the Whigs in history's dustbin.

JLawson, you hit it out of the park. Unfortunately for Mr. Williams, I think he's even afraid of a "fluffy bunny".

Once again "we" get blamed for the self destructive nature of the Dems. I guess Karl Rove once again worked his magic and got Lamont to step up an challenge old Joe.

And I do believe the MSM has once again has given the Dems a false sense of hope with the upcoming elections. So when Fitzmas doesn't come once again, it must mean that the Grinch - better known as Karl Rove - has once again broken their wittle hearts...

If you can't short at Iowa, then who is selling those contracts? If what you mean by not being able to short is that once the initial bunch of contracts is written no extra can be added, then I understand.

And arbitrage can certainly exist, for at least a short amount of time - in what volume and how often are these contracts traded? It doesn't seem like an overly active market, to me.When it's akin to a $5 you've got, or the max profit you can realize is only a couple hundred, you don't have that many arbitrageurs out there. It's more worth their time looking for arbitrage in more lucrative markets.

By the way, the Dems used to not have so many nuts possibly in positions of power. It's their own seniority system that's causing it to a certain extent, and though I do believe that they'd change that system the moment they get unacceptable chairmen from it, I don't think their bench is very deep. But deep enough to prevent a provably corrupt person from being in charge of intelligence. No, not all pols, even Democratic pols, are actual crooks.

If there are enough Dems to take over the House, I think there will be enough sane Dems to change the rules. If they know that disaffection with the overall party (not just with the President) is what got the Repubs kicked out, 2 years with attention-seeking loons in charge of important committees will be more than enough advertisement to get the Dems kicked out again. Those "competitive" or even "safely Democratic" districts might turn again. But if they feel they =must= give Alcee his turn at committee chairmanship (otherwise they'll be labeled racist), then they deserve whatever they get in 2008.

I'm not going to have a stroke if the Dems take over the House (if the Repubs keep the Senate), as it's mainly going to mean absolutely nothing gets done. The various idiots will have their little show hearings, and they might even get an impeachment out of it -- though what's going to happen to it in the Senate? Even if the Dems were in charge there, not much unless they really want to kill their party. We can see how powerful Pelosi really is in holding back the loons. I think they know how bad it damages the prospects of having a Dem President, much less holding on to the House, to let their worst impulses reign.

Admitting the GOP is running the country into the ground while purporting to fear a Democratic party with the same 1990's public policy that gave us the best era in the history of our republic, is well... stupid.

Just as anybody could have predicted, the same trickle down voodoo economics of Reagan/Bush one would have the same disastrous results under Bush 2 as they did when they got Clinton elected in the wake of record deficits and on the slogan "it's the economy stupid", it's likewise a good bet the successful policies of the Clinton Democrats will bring the same fantastic results they brought the last time the Dems ran the show.

So why would you fear America gaining 23 million new jobs under Democratic rule? Why would you fear eliminating the federal budget deficit and paying down our national debt? Why would you fear real wages going through the roof? Why would you fear another era of government sponsored R&D that results in massive competitive advantage for the United States and our businesses? Why would you fear the greatest economic expansion in the history of our republic? Why would you fear no major terrorist attacks on US soil under Democratic watch (well, by radical Islamic terrorists anyway. We did have that one by the Christian Republican Tim McVeigh)? Why would you fear being admired and respected in the international community?

Why would you fear many close allies in capitals all around the world, countries eager to coordinate on the great kind of police work that foiled the millennium bomber in 1999 and the supposed liquid-chem-lab-on-a-plane-chilled to a precise temperature-highly concentrated acetone peroxide-added drop-by-drop in exact measurements-with two other unique agents-in an ice bath-before the then extremely volatile mixture is dried so it can be detonated? (Note to Republicans – if you ever see men of middle eastern decent walking en mass to the airplane laboratory carrying beakers, stirring rods, medicine droppers, multiple containers of clear liquids that smell strongly of sulfuric acid, gel packs, and dry ice, you have our full approval to spring into action and save the day. If you happen to miss all of that, the strong chemical odor emanating from the restroom during the hours long mixing and drying process should also tip you off.)

Your irrational and illogical fears not withstanding, you are advocating, indeed fighting hard, to forgo what history (and the GAO) have clearly and indisputably shown to be great results of Clinton Democratic public policy (for all socio-economic segments of American society) and the fiscal health of our government, in favor of what history (and the GAO… and our current reality) have clearly and indisputably shown to be national disasters in nearly every area of public policy. You are fighting to continue our headlong rush of the fiscal cliff. You are cheering the bankrupting of our government and fighting to prevent the return of public policy that had proven successful.

You advocate wasting trillions of our precious national defense resources on non-threats like Iraq and worthless corporate welfare like Star Wars instead of directing those resources toward developing the intel and special ops capabilities that will actually keep us safe and find Bin Ladin and his peeps.

I could go on all day, environmental protection, investment in education, controlling violent crime (now going up everywhere), etc. On all fronts Republican public policy is a massive failure. No true, patriotic American would fight for failure for the United States. Only our enemies behave that way.

So fear not the Democrats. In fact pray they get power back soon enough to save your American future.

Listen new stranger, if you want some respect around here, you best do a bit more research than just spouting the dem talking points.

The only success Clinton had was welfare reform and that was a Republican initiative.

The so called "economic success" of the Clinton administration was about as good as his marriage... looked good on the outside, but was nothing but smoke and mirrors. If your so confident it was Clinton's doing, then please list for us the policies and or laws Clinton passed that created the technology boom... and please don't say he had al gore invent the Internet!

Finally we don't really warm up to folks who can't back up their statements... this ain't KOS or the DU.

Why would you fear many close allies in capitals all around the world, countries eager to coordinate on the great kind of police work that foiled the millennium bomber in 1999

This is good example of your BS and spin. It's a known fact that this was simple the doing of one great boarder patrol guard doing their job. There were no "coordinated" police work here... and there this was not a policy Clinton created. So get real "newbie"

Your irrational and illogical fears not withstanding, you are advocating, indeed fighting hard, to forgo what history (and the GAO) have clearly and indisputably shown to be great results of Clinton Democratic public policy

Yeah he did such a great job dealing with the looming terrorist threat. It's not like bin Laden was handed to him on a silver platter and he declined or anything.

Oh and he did a great job creating a culture where Enron and Tyco could flourish unchecked to the detriment of their stockholders, and employees. Too bad this president brought that to a halt.

Oh and let's not forget the Gorelik wall sending intelligence gathering back to the stone age. That was simply fabulous!

Yeah Clinton was great particularly if you are the kind of person who doesn't realize that if you eat 12 ice cream sundaes for dinner, later they will make you sick.

I too think we do better with 2 parties new guy. I differ with you in that I think both should be competant.

My fear is that low wattage, high flim-flam Conyers will be in charge of the judiciary committee if the Dems win. Are you saying my fear is unfounded, that he wouldn't get that spot?

Or that Hastings wouldn't get intelligence?
If the Dems want to win, they should change around the committees and guarantee no impeachment on any grounds that have surfaced so far. At least if they did that they could possibly get my vote.

"So why would you fear America gaining 23 million new jobs under Democratic rule? Why would you fear eliminating the federal budget deficit and paying down our national debt? Why would you fear real wages going through the roof? Why would you fear another era of government sponsored R&D that results in massive competitive advantage for the United States and our businesses? Why would you fear the greatest economic expansion in the history of our republic? Why would you fear no major terrorist attacks on US soil under Democratic watch (well, by radical Islamic terrorists anyway. We did have that one by the Christian Republican Tim McVeigh)? Why would you fear being admired and respected in the international community?"

Under Bush 2, we're already gaining new jobs under Republican rule.

Federal deficit is being cut in half and drastically going down faster than predicted. The 2008 president, as long as the tax cuts remain in place, will see deficits going downhill further, regardless of democrat or republican.

As for real wages going through the roof, believe the Republicans would be happy with the real wages going through the roof. As for raising minimum wage, take Economics 101 under Larry Elder.

Bush adm welcomes R&D.

We're seeing one of the greatest economic expansions under Bush adm.

As long as the democrats whittle away national security, this country is exposed to terrorist attacks and we wouldn't know it coming.

We are and should be highly respected and admired in the international community (except for CIA but it's not because of fear; it's because of its reputation and credibility).

"So why would you fear America gaining 23 million new jobs under Democratic rule? Why would you fear eliminating the federal budget deficit and paying down our national debt? Why would you fear real wages going through the roof?"

It is another nail in The Wilson's lawsuit against Cheney, Rove et al. It is looking more and more like the lawsuit was just a scam to up Val's book price. They are both disgusting money hungry people but we already knew that!

No problem. Actually what Al Gore did with respect to the Internet is a perfect example. Glad you brought it up. See, very little significant basic R&D gets done anywhere in the world, including this country, without big time government backing. And I'm sure you know the story of the Internet. It was initially developed as the Darpanet in the UC Labs (with all public/government money). And if not for Al Gore, that's exactly where it would have stayed.

Gore saw the potential of this Darpa net and what this could do for our tech sector, our country, and our world, and became a relentless advocate for the government funding that would be required to bring it out of the labs and into what we know today as the internet. He was the undisputed leader of this effort (if you have any doubt, just look up what Newt Gingrich says on the matter). He and other Dems fought very hard for the government investment that allowed us to have the internet and the tech boom that allowed us to retake the lead over Japan.

Basic R&D is far too expensive, risky, and hit and miss/trial and error for any private institution to go it alone. Therefore not enough of it gets done to be competitive in the international marketplace without massive government sponsorship/tax incentives/access to publicly funded facilities, etc.

We could do the same today leading the biotech boom. But Republicans in government won’t fund it so the top researchers are leaving for other countries that do fund this area so vital to our future competitiveness as a nation. Something about Jesus I think.

Aside from the monstrously successful public policy that led to the tech boom, to further address your question on what else Clinton and Dems did, look to the budgets of 1993, 1994, 1994, 1995. (the first two Clinton and Dems agreed, the second two Clinton got his way over the GOP after the government shut down and Newt gave up and went away forever). In in 1993 the Dems set out a strategy of deficit reduction, targeted tax cuts in sectors and segments that would spur economic growth, raised taxes on the rich, heavy government investment in R&D for tech/biotech, increased investment in education (to keep us ahead in the world). Every single Republican voted against it, warning against a certain doom of higher deficits, higher interest rates and slower growth.

Of course it is now a part of history that it worked brilliantly well. And logically, how could it not. Since the manufacturing base fled we have consumer spending driven economy. The deficit reductions and eventual elimination in Clintons second term increased consumer and business confidence, lowered interest rates and increased investment. The tax breaks for the poor and middle class put more money in the pockets of the people more likely to spend the extra cash, and they did. As a result growth was great, the job market and real wages went way up, government revenue went up and the rest is history.

I have many nice charts and graphs that show in stark terms the difference between Republican and Democratic results with respect to GDP growth, federal budget deficits, job creation and wage growth. They take into account various accepted lag times (hint, none of them indicate it would have taken 15-18 years for Reagan’s supply side economics to work so well for Clinton in his second term. They all pretty much show what he did in his first term paid off huge in the second. If you would like any of that just let me know.

Based on this MSNBC article (GAG on David Corn), the question is that Fitzgerald knew about Armitage long before talking to Libby so wouldn't this pretty much destroy his case against Libby Lewis? Fitz was assigned to find the leaker. He found the leaker before he began talking to Libby (and Rove, too) so how can that be seen as perjury and obstruction of justice?

Armitage had been at home reading the newspaper and had come across a column by journalist Robert Novak. Months earlier, Novak had caused a huge stir when he revealed that Valerie Plame, wife of Iraq-war critic Joseph Wilson, was a CIA officer. Ever since, Washington had been trying to find out who leaked the information to Novak. The columnist himself had kept quiet. But now, in a second column, Novak provided a tantalizing clue: his primary source, he wrote, was a "senior administration official" who was "not a partisan gunslinger." Armitage was shaken. After reading the column, he knew immediately who the leaker was. On the phone with Powell that morning, Armitage was "in deep distress," says a source directly familiar with the conversation who asked not to be identified because of legal sensitivities. "I'm sure he's talking about me."

Armitage's admission led to a flurry of anxious phone calls and meetings that day at the State Department. (Days earlier, the Justice Department had launched a criminal investigation into the Plame leak after the CIA informed officials there that she was an undercover officer.) Within hours, William Howard Taft IV, the State Department's legal adviser, notified a senior Justice official that Armitage had information relevant to the case. The next day, a team of FBI agents and Justice prosecutors investigating the leak questioned the deputy secretary. Armitage acknowledged that he had passed along to Novak information contained in a classified State Department memo: that Wilson's wife worked on weapons-of-mass-destruction issues at the CIA. (The memo made no reference to her undercover status.) Armitage had met with Novak in his State Department office on July 8, 2003—just days before Novak published his first piece identifying Plame. Powell, Armitage and Taft, the only three officials at the State Department who knew the story, never breathed a word of it publicly and Armitage's role remained secret.

Armitage, a well-known gossip who loves to dish and receive juicy tidbits about Washington characters, apparently hadn't thought through the possible implications of telling Novak about Plame's identity. "I'm afraid I may be the guy that caused this whole thing," he later told Carl Ford Jr., State's intelligence chief. Ford says Armitage admitted to him that he had "slipped up" and told Novak more than he should have. "He was basically beside himself that he was the guy that f---ed up. My sense from Rich is that it was just chitchat," Ford recalls in "Hubris," to be published next week by Crown and co-written by the author of this article and David Corn, Washington editor of The Nation magazine.

As it turned out, Novak wasn't the only person Armitage talked to about Plame. Washington Post reporter Bob Woodward has also said he was told of Plame's identity in June 2003. Woodward did not respond to requests for comment for this article, but, as late as last week, he referred reporters to his comments in November 2005 that he learned of her identity in a "casual and offhand" conversation with an administration official he declined to identify. According to three government officials, a lawyer familiar with the case and an Armitage confidant, all of whom would not be named discussing these details, Armitage told Woodward about Plame three weeks before talking to Novak. Armitage has consistently refused to discuss the case; through an assistant last week he declined to comment for this story. Novak would say only: "I don't discuss my sources until they reveal themselves."

The disclosures about Armitage, gleaned from interviews with colleagues, friends and lawyers directly involved in the case, underscore one of the ironies of the Plame investigation: that the initial leak, seized on by administration critics as evidence of how far the White House was willing to go to smear an opponent, came from a man who had no apparent intention of harming anyone.

"Basic R&D is far too expensive, risky, and hit and miss/trial and error for any private institution to go it alone. Therefore not enough of it gets done to be competitive in the international marketplace without massive government sponsorship/tax incentives/access to publicly funded facilities, etc."

Sometimes private industry is better off without government involvement. IBM, Exxon, and other major corporations all did and continue to do R&D and did well.

On the other hand, we wouldn't have today's computers without Bill Gates, Steve Jobs, etc., working out of their garages.

I am not interested in charts that appear to be biased. Economy's doing well today; although, I do admit that job salaries aren't catching up. Federal deficits are coming down drastically in spite of heavy spending on GWOT, Katrina / Rita aid, and other major programs plus heavy earmarks plus uncontrolled spending by Congress, regardless of party affiliation.

"Aside from the monstrously successful public policy that led to the tech boom, to further address your question on what else Clinton and Dems did, look to the budgets of 1993, 1994, 1994, 1995. (the first two Clinton and Dems agreed, the second two Clinton got his way over the GOP after the government shut down and Newt gave up and went away forever)."

Actually, the deregulation and loosening of the accounting rules (specifically relieving corporate officers from much of the liability that had formally resulted from fraud) that resulted in Enron and Tyco are cornerstones of Republican policy (not to mention Lay was Bush's best friend). Much of it was in Gingrich's contract with America. Dems want more regulation and oversight.

The millennium bomber was caught after specific intel led to increased border security directed to look for exactly what they found. That's good police work. That good counter-terrorism work. Clinton's team got the job done.

9/11 was on Bush's watch. The Bush's team failed and although they were warned by Berger and Clark adnausium about Bin Ladin, Bush vacationed all summer long the major national security speech Rice was scheduled to give on 9/11 contained exactly one sentence about Islamic terrorism and 20 minute on Star Wars.

On top of all that, every time Clinton went after Bin Ladin the entire GOP demanded he stop using the good men and women of our military to take attention away from Moincagate.

"In in 1993 the Dems set out a strategy of deficit reduction, targeted tax cuts in sectors and segments that would spur economic growth, raised taxes on the rich, heavy government investment in R&D for tech/biotech, increased investment in education (to keep us ahead in the world). Every single Republican voted against it, warning against a certain doom of higher deficits, higher interest rates and slower growth."

Bush planned a real federal deficit reduction by half by 2009 and it's coming down faster than planned in spite of the tax cuts, now made permanent until 2009 and overspending by Congress.

There's got to be a real reason why the Republicans voted against the dem's tax cuts at that time. I am not familiar with the details of that tax cut.

Gore saw the potential of this Darpa net and what this could do for our tech sector, our country, and our world, and became a relentless advocate for the government funding that would be required to bring it out of the labs and into what we know today as the internet.

"Preliminary discussions of how the ARPANET would be designed began in 1967, and a request for proposals went out the following year. In 1969, the Defense Department commissioned the ARPANET.

Gore was 21-years-old at the time. He wasn't even done with law school at Vanderbilt University. It would be eight more years before Gore would be elected to the US House of Representatives as a freshman Democrat with scant experience in passing legislation, let alone ambitious proposals. "

There is nothing more funny than listening to morons blow it out the arses, especially when it comes to this little fairy tail...

Had Clinton accepted the offer to extricate OBL, he still wouldn't need our good men to go after him.

"9/11 was on Bush's watch. The Bush's team failed and although they were warned by Berger and Clark adnausium about Bin Ladin, Bush vacationed all summer long the major national security speech Rice was scheduled to give on 9/11 contained exactly one sentence about Islamic terrorism and 20 minute on Star Wars."

Boy, you got brainwashed by Michael Moore's F911 movie. While Bush vacated...NOT all summer long but rather one month long in Crawford, he did government work in Crawford while on vacation.

Of course, Bush was warned about OBL and imminent attacks but not the specifics. So what? Why do you think this is bad? I don't understand what the big deal is.

How many speeches has Bush made on WOT over the years? Bet you haven't counted.

Deregulation and oversight are good as long as the corporations adhere to ethical practices and common sense. Enron, Tyco, Worldcom, dot coms, and Silicon Valley were unethical in their business practices, regardless of deregulation and oversight.

Oh nonsense. Once the basic research was done, there was no more chance of keeping that genie in the bottle than uninventing the light bulb. Big Al's contribution was window dressing, followed by a ridiculous overstatement claiming credit.

"Following the downing of TWA Flight 800 in 1996, Gore was entrusted by President Clinton to investigate airline safety. He was named chairman of the White House Commission on Aviation Safety.

The Gore commission produced what most observers considered to be a tough preliminary report unveiled Sept. 9 of that year – one that included tough counter-terrorism procedures.

But within days, according to an insider on the commission, the airline industry jumped all over Gore. As a result, 10 days later, Gore sent a letter to airline lobbyist Carol Hallett promising that the commission's findings would not result in any loss of revenue.

In what can only be seen as a pure political payoff, the Democratic National Committee received $40,000 from TWA the next day. Within two weeks, Northwest, United and American Airlines ponied up another $55,000 for the 1996 campaign.

But the money trail didn't stop there. In the next two months leading up to the November elections, American Airlines donated $250,000 to the Democrats. United donated $100,000 to the DNC. Northwestern put $53,000 more into the kitty.

Following the election, in January, Gore floated a draft final report that eliminated all security measures from the commission's findings, according to the insider. Two commission members balked, as did CIA Director John Deutch.

Fearing more political heat, Gore pulled back the draft report. A month later, the final report was issued – one that included requirements that would cost the airlines some money, but, perhaps, save some lives in the future."

Overall the Dems raised taxes in 1993. Raised them big time on the rich, but cut them for the poor and middle class. The poor are certain to spend the extra money because they have to, the middle class more likely and the super rich don't stop spending money because their tax bill went up. And again, since the manufacturing base fled, neither do they significantly impact the economy with any potential decrease in long term investment (especially after the short term boost we get from the additional consumer spending)

But Lurker, you honestly don't need to buy my reasoning. History has clearly proven this case. The results are in. The game is over and the score is up for all to see. What say we all come together and get America winning again?

The Silicon valley is alive, well, and still every bit the engine that is driving California to an economy that if the state were a country would be the 5th largest economy in the world.

As for the current state of our economy, the current Republican episode of American rule has turned record surpluses to massive deficits (record deficits as of just two years ago, but now back to simply staggering and imminently disastrous). I'm not sure this policy created even one new job in Bush's entire first term. Over the last three months we've averaged 120,000 new jobs. We need 150,000 just to keep pace with population (job market growth). Clinton's/Dem team AVERAGED 250,000 new jobs a month over an 8 year span. Not-even-close.

"As for the current state of our economy, the current Republican episode of American rule has turned record surpluses to massive deficits (record deficits as of just two years ago, but now back to simply staggering and imminently disastrous). I'm not sure this policy created even one new job in Bush's entire first term. Over the last three months we've averaged 120,000 new jobs. We need 150,000 just to keep pace with population (job market growth). Clinton's/Dem team AVERAGED 250,000 new jobs a month over an 8 year span. Not-even-close."

9/11, heavy spending on GWOT as almost unanimously voted by our Congress along with the economy taking a major hit because of Clinton's actions in the early Bush years took a toll on our country. Plus the surpluses as shown by Clinton were covered by smoke and mirrors by fudging the numbers.

In the last few years, the economy is improving showing job numbers increasing per month, number of unemployment claims drastically going down, federal deficits going down faster than anticipated.

"But Lurker, you honestly don't need to buy my reasoning. History has clearly proven this case. The results are in. The game is over and the score is up for all to see. What say we all come together and get America winning again?"

"But Lurker, you honestly don't need to buy my reasoning. History has clearly proven this case. The results are in. The game is over and the score is up for all to see. What say we all come together and get America winning again?"

new child boy... "Gore recognized the potential of the DARPAnet" well duh! so did virtually everyone in the Computer, Science and Engineering communities. The reason why the Internet became a commercial success is due to people like Anderseen/Netscape, who humanized it. If it wasn't for the interest and investment by the private sector, the US government would still be pouring money down the crap hole - just like everything they fund!

"Conclusion
The federal government is in a technology crisis. For decades it has wasted exorbitant sums of taxpayer dollars through its technological incompetence. At the same time, the government has proven itself incapable of maximizing the benefits of high-tech innovations. But as the year 2000 approaches, the issue is no longer just burning taxpayers' dollars. The issue has become the safety and security of the American people."

Well, I worry because only you and partisan Repbublicans are saying our economic/fiscal situation is good. The data says otherwise. The economists say otherwise. The housing market says otherwise. The job market says otherwise. Wage growth says otherwise. Our massive deficit says otherwise. And bad as things are now (especially when compared to the last time The Democrats were in charge), it's about to get much worse. Just about everybody is predicting a recesssion of various degrees.

Again, if you don't believe me about Gore vital role in giving us the internet, I'm sure Newt Gingrich is your man:

"In all fairness, it's something Gore had worked on a long time. Gore is not the Father of the Internet, but in all fairness Gore is the person who, in the Congress, most systematically worked to make sure that we got to an Internet, and the truth is ... I worked with him starting in 1978 when I got there, we were both part of a 'futures group.' The fact is, in the Clinton administration the world we had talked about in the '80s began to actually happen. You can see it in your own life, between the Internet, the computer, the cellphone."

Gore never said he invented the Internet. Unless you think he was trying to make people believe he had a computer science lab in his congressional office and was a computer genius, you must accept that what he said was meant to describe his fight to get the funds to bring the internet out of the labs and into your life. Put in a grand way to be sure, but most political stump speech is that way.

Hi Lurker,
It's the presidents budget. You have to look no further than the government shutdowns in 95 and 96 to know that. All the tax policy and spending is in the budget. It is, in a nut shell, our econonic and fiscal policy. In 93 and 94 Clinton and Dems had their way. In 95 and 96 Clinton and Dems had their way. They got their budget for the first four years at least. After that I think the GOP was gun shy and pretty much just gave Clinton what he wanted. They took a beating over the government shut downs. It ruined Gingrich's carrer. But in any case, those four budgets were bold and they put us on a course that made history.

He may have pushed it alot but he wasn't the only one pushing good things either. So just because Al Gore pushed the fundings to make DarpaNet available through TCP/IP prototols to the public is still insignificant in terms of the overall grand scheme of political accomplishments.

No, it's not the president's budget, new guy. The US president can sign or veto it. If vetoed, it goes back to Congress for more work. Congress is the one that approves the budget. US president can come up with his or her own budget plan but ultimately that budget plan goes to the Congress for their tweaks, updates, redlines, and votes.

Congress is really the one that controls it.

P.S. I don't like Al Gore. He pretty much helped destroy NASA when they first entered the office. An email written by Gore was distributed across the Internet endorsed by Al Gore indicated of his hatred towards IBM and Corporate America. Oh, what a shock!